Planning and Environment Act 1987dsewebapps.dse.vic.gov.au/Shared/ATSAttachment1.nsf/(attachment...Planning and Environment Act 1987 ... 1.4 Background to the proposal ... Mr Basil

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report

Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C178

Heritage Overlay

18 May 2015

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act

Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C178

Heritage Overlay

18 18 May 2015

Gaye McKenzie, Chair Helen Martin, Member

Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C178 Panel Report 18 May 2015

Contents Page

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. i

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The Panel ................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 The subject land and surrounds .............................................................................. 2 1.4 Background to the proposal .................................................................................... 2 1.5 Issues dealt with in this report ................................................................................ 3

2 Strategic Planning Context .......................................................................................... 4 2.1 Legislative framework ............................................................................................. 4 2.2 Policy framework ..................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Planning scheme provisions .................................................................................... 6 2.4 Other studies ........................................................................................................... 9 2.5 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes ............................................................. 10 2.6 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 11

3 Identification and Assessment Processes .................................................................. 12 3.1 The Issue ................................................................................................................ 12 3.2 Evidence on behalf of Council – Ms N Schmeder .................................................. 12 3.3 Submissions ........................................................................................................... 14 3.4 Discussion and conclusions ................................................................................... 15 3.5 Recommendation .................................................................................................. 16

4 Heritage Precinct ...................................................................................................... 17 4.1 HO590 – Grange Avenue Heritage Precinct .......................................................... 17 4.2 Description of Precinct .......................................................................................... 17 4.3 Statement of Significance (extract) ....................................................................... 17 4.4 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 18 4.5 Discussion and conclusions ................................................................................... 19

5 Individual Heritage Places ......................................................................................... 20 5.1 HO594 – 59 Auburn Road, Hawthorn ................................................................... 20 5.2 HO603 – 415 – 417 High Street, Kew .................................................................... 22 5.3 HO591 – 13 – 15 Irilbarra Road, Canterbury ......................................................... 25 5.4 HO593 – 165 Whitehorse Road, Deepdene .......................................................... 28 5.5 HO600 – 4A Montrose Street, Hawthorn .............................................................. 33 5.6 HO20 – 1045 Burke Road, Hawthorn East ............................................................ 42

Appendix A List of Submitters

Appendix B Document List

Appendix C HERCON Heritage Criteria


List of Tables Page

Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing .................................................................................... 2

Table 2 Source of identification of places as having potential heritage significance ............................................................................................................ 14

List of Abbreviations

C1Z Commercial 1 Zone

DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

DTPLI Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (former)

GRZ General Residential Zone

HO Heritage Overlay

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

NRZ Neighbourhood Residential Zone

NTR National Trust Register

RNE Register of the National Estate

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions


Overview

Amendment Summary

The Amendment Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C178

Common Name Heritage Overlay

Subject Site Various

The Proponent Boroondara City Council

Planning Authority Boroondara City Council

Authorisation Not required

Exhibition 16 October to 21 November 2014

Submissions Eleven submissions received which included nine objecting submissions

Panel Process

The Panel Gaye McKenzie (Chair) and Helen Martin

Directions Hearing City of Boroondara offices on 26 March 2015

Panel Hearing 21, 22, 23 and 28 April 2015

Site Inspections Unaccompanied inspections on 26 March and 28 April 2015

Appearances See Table 1

Date of this Report 18 May 2015


Page i

Executive Summary

(i) Summary

Amendment C178, as exhibited, proposes to apply the Heritage Overlay on a permanent basis to 17 individual properties and one small precinct of five properties. It amends Clause 22.05 to include the Precinct’s Statement of Significance and makes its Citation a Reference Document in the Planning Scheme. It also amends the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay that currently applies to 1045 Burke Road to trigger the permit requirements of the Schedule for trees and fences and outbuildings.

Eleven submissions were received to the Amendment, with nine opposing the application of the heritage overlay to their properties. Two of the submitters also queried the thoroughness of the comparative assessments undertaken for particular properties.

On the 21 April 2015, at its Hearing, the Panel was provided with advice that, acting under delegation from the Minister for Planning, the Executive Director ‐ Statutory Planning and Heritage had determined to prepare, adopt and approve Amendment C211 to the Boroondara Planning Scheme to apply interim controls over all but two properties contained in Amendment C178.

The reasons for excluding the two properties related to building works proposed on one and the location of the other in an Activity Centre.

The Panel has considered the written submissions as well as the submissions and evidence presented to it at the Hearing.

With one exception, the Panel supports the application of the Heritage Overlay to the properties contained in the Amendment. It also supports the minor changes made to some of the Citations, post‐exhibition, to reflect additional information provided by submitters for their properties. In particular, these relate to 59 Auburn Road, Hawthorn, 415 – 417 High Street, Kew, 11 – 13 Irilbarra Road, Canterbury and 1045 Burke Road, Camberwell.

The Panel noted that while the Citation for the heritage precinct has been made a Reference Document in the Scheme, those for the individual properties have not. The Panel has recommended that the Citations for these individual properties also be made a Reference Document in the Scheme.

The Panel does not support the application of the Heritage Overlay to 165 Whitehorse Road Deepdene for the reasons set out in the body of this report.

The Panel has also recommended that the Schedule be amended to allow consideration of prohibited uses at 415‐417 High Street, Kew. The Panel supports the Council decision to remove tree controls from 59 Auburn Road, Hawthorn and 1045 Burke Road, Hawthorn East.


Page ii

(ii) Recommendation

Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends that:

1 Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C178 be adopted as exhibited, subject to the following changes:

a) Add the statements of significance for individual places recommended for listing on the Heritage Overlay through Amendment C178 (collected together into a single document, titled ‘Individually Significant Heritage Places – Amendment C178’ or similar) to the policy references in sub‐clause 22.05‐7.

b) Substitute the word ‘No’ for ‘Yes, two Norfolk Island Pines’ in the column ‘Tree Controls Apply?’ in the entry for HO594, ‘Former Astolat Ladies College’, 59 Auburn Road, Hawthorn East.

c) Amend the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay to include the word ‘Yes’ under the Column ‘Prohibited uses may be permitted?’ for HO603, 415–417 High Street, Kew.

d) Delete the property at 165 Whitehorse Road, Deepdene (HO593) from the Heritage Overlay.

e) Substitute the word ‘No’ for ‘Yes (Specimens of Privet, Crab Apple, and plants comprising Tapestry Hedge on Burke and Rathmines Road frontages)’ in the column ‘Tree Controls Apply’ in the entry for HO20, ‘Arden’, 1045 Burke Road, Hawthorn East.


Page 1 of 48

1 Introduction

1.1 The Amendment

Boroondara Planning Scheme Amendment C178 (the Amendment) was prepared by the Boroondara Council as Planning Authority. As exhibited, the Amendment proposes to:

Amend the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay at Clause 43.01 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme and the Planning Scheme Maps by applying the Heritage Overlay (HO) on a permanent basis to: - HO588 27 Canterbury Road, Camberwell (Lot 1 TP613803 & Lot 1 TP399716) - HO589 1395 Toorak Road, Camberwell (former State Savings Bank) - HO590 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 Grange Avenue, Canterbury (Grange Avenue Residential

Precinct) - HO591 13‐15 Irilbarra Road, Canterbury - HO592 52, 54, 56 and 58 Rochester Road, Canterbury (former Canterbury

Brickworks Housing) - HO593 165 Whitehorse Road, Deepdene (former Deepdene Post Office) - HO594 59 Auburn Rd, Hawthorn (external paint controls and tree controls

proposed; prohibited uses may be permitted) - HO595 277 Auburn Road, Hawthorn (Riversdale Hotel) - HO596 287‐289 Auburn Road, Hawthorn (former Carr's Butcher Shop) - HO597 23 Morang Road, Hawthorn - HO598 45 Morang Road, Hawthorn - HO599 686‐690 Burwood Road, Hawthorn East (Tower Hotel) - HO600 4A Montrose Street, Hawthorn East - HO601 88 Pleasant Road, Hawthorn East (external paint controls proposed) - HO602 5 Eamon Court, Kew - HO603 415‐417 High Street, Kew - HO604 8 Orford Avenue, Kew - HO607 1363 Burke Road, Kew East

Amend Clause 22.05 Heritage Policy to include a Statement of Significance for HO590 ‐ Grange Avenue Residential Precinct and the citation as a reference document.

Amend Schedule 20 to the Heritage Overlay (HO20) at Clause 43.01 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme by applying ‘tree controls’ as well as ‘fence and outbuilding notice requirements’ to the existing heritage overlay HO20 affecting 1045 Burke Road, Hawthorn East.

Council was advised on 5 September 2014 by the then Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure that the Amendment could be prepared without authorisation.

1.2 The Panel

At its meeting of 16 February 2015, following exhibition of the Amendment, Council resolved to refer the opposing submissions to a Panel. As a result, a Panel to consider the Amendment was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 11 March 2015 and comprised Gaye McKenzie (Chair) and Helen Martin.


Page 2 of 48

The Panel met in the offices of the Boroondara Council (Camberwell Library) on 21, 22 and 28 April and at Planning Panels Victoria on 23 April 2015 to hear submissions about the Amendment. Those in attendance at the Panel hearing are listed in Table 1.

Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing

Submitter Represented by

Boroondara City Council Ms Jo Liu, Strategic Planner, assisted by Ms Shiranthi Widan, who called the following expert witnesses:

‐ Ms Natica Schmeder, Architectural Historian, Context Pty Ltd

‐ Mr Simon Reeves, Architectural Historian, Built Heritage Pty Ltd

Mr Basil Hedges

Mr Aleks Kaya

Dr Tony Sobol

Bolalo Pty Ltd Mr Panos Nickas, Lawyer, Best Hooper, who called the following expert witnesses:

‐ Mr Bryce Raworth, Heritage, Conservation Consultant and Architectural Historian

‐ Mr Peter Barrett, Architectural Historian

Mr Kenneth Edmonds Ms Joanne Lardner, Barrister who called the following expert witness:

‐ Mr Peter Barrett, Architectural Historian

Minter Ellison, on behalf of 1045 Burke Road Pty Ltd, originally requested to be heard at the Hearing but advised subsequently that they would not appear. They requested the Panel take into account an opinion from Mr Bryce Raworth, conservation consultant and architectural historian, which was presented to and accepted by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). A copy of this evidence was appended to their letter to the Panel.

Documents tabled at the hearing are shown in Appendix B.

1.3 The subject land and surrounds

The land affected by the Amendment consists of a number of parcels (listed in section 1.1 above). Most places are located within residential areas but four are commercial properties in activity centres.

Opposing submissions referred to six individual places and one proposed precinct. The planning controls applying to these sites are summarised in Chapter 2.

1.4 Background to the proposal

Council, in its submission to the Hearing, described the processes leading up to exhibition of Amendment C178.

The Boroondara Heritage Action Plan, adopted in 2012, listed the following actions as ‘very high priority’:


Page 3 of 48

Employ a full/part time heritage consultant to provide heritage services and advice to the Strategic Planning Department.

Develop an annual program of proactive individual heritage assessments prioritising:

properties graded B or C in former heritage studies which are not in a heritage overlay and have not been reviewed since their initial grading

places listed in the Boroondara Thematic Environmental History, particularly post war architect designed buildings, churches and hotels

places on the Register of the National Estate.

It identified a further action to be carried out on an ongoing basis, or as required:

Continue to implement a referral process to ensure sites of possible heritage significance are assessed by a heritage consultant prior to issuing report and consent to demolition under Section 29A of the Building Act 1993.

Context Pty Ltd, the firm engaged to provide the services described above, identified 18 individual places and one small precinct for HO listing. These included places assessed in earlier studies but not actioned, places mentioned in the Thematic Environment History and places on the Register of the National Estate. Consultants from Context assessed the proposed precinct and 17 of the individual places. Context also reviewed the citation for 1045 Burke Road, Hawthorn East (HO20), which had been referred as a result of a planning permit process for the property, and recommended the application of tree controls and activation of ‘fence and outbuilding’ notice requirements in the HO schedule. Built Heritage Pty Ltd assessed the remaining individual place, 4A Montrose Street, Hawthorn East.

1.5 Issues dealt with in this report

The Panel considered all written submissions, as well as evidence and submissions presented to it during the hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of specific sites.

This report deals with the issues under the following headings:

Strategic Planning Context

Identification and Assessment Processes

Heritage Precinct

Individual Heritage Properties.


Page 4 of 48

2 Strategic Planning Context

Council provided a response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines as part of the Explanatory Report.

The Panel has reviewed the policy context of the Amendment and made a brief appraisal of the relevant zone and overlay controls and other relevant planning strategies.

2.1 Legislative framework

The Planning and Environment Act 1987 contains an objective at 4[1][b]:

To conserve and enhance those buildings, areas and other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value.

The Building Act 1993, at Section 29A, provides that any application for demolition (to the extent defined in the section) can only be approved after the report and consent of the responsible authority has been obtained. Section 29B provides that if the responsible authority does not wish to consent it can apply to the Minister for Planning for an exemption from advertising and procedural matters to prepare an amendment to the relevant planning scheme, or can request the Minster to prepare such an amendment. Consideration of the demolition permit must then be suspended while the Amendment is processed.

2.2 Policy framework

2.2.1 Plan Melbourne – Metropolitan Planning Strategy, 2014

Council submitted that Plan Melbourne recognises the importance of Melbourne’s heritage. It includes Direction 4.7 – Respect our heritage as we build for the future. It also includes Initiative 4.7.1 – Value Heritage when managing growth and change, which states:

Plan Melbourne aims to protect the city’s heritage and improve heritage management processes within the Victorian planning system.

Council submitted that Amendment C178 supported Plan Melbourne’s Direction 4.7 and Initiative 4.7.1, as it seeks to protect buildings of local heritage significance in the City of Boroondara.

2.2.2 State Planning Policy Framework

Council submitted that the Amendment is supported by the following clause in the SPPF:

Clause 15.03‐1 – Heritage conservation.

This clause seeks to: Ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance. Strategies identified to achieve this objective include:

Identify, assess and document places of natural and cultural heritage significance as a basis for their inclusion in the planning scheme.

Provide for the conservation and enhancement of those places which are of aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, cultural, scientific, or social significance, or otherwise of special cultural value.


Page 5 of 48

2.2.3 Local Planning Policy Framework

Municipal Strategic Statement

Council submitted that the Amendment is consistent with the vision and direction for the municipality, identified in Clause 21.04‐2 Mission. This states that Council will preserve and enhance the amenity of Boroondara’s urban environments and facilitate appropriate development.

The Amendment, in Council’s view, supports the following local planning objective:

Clause 21.05 – Heritage, Landscape and Character, in particular sub‐clause 21.05‐3, which includes an objective:

To identify and protect all individual places, objects and precincts of cultural heritage, aboriginal, townscape and landscape significance.

One of the strategies identified to achieve this objective is:

Conserve and enhance individual heritage places and heritage precincts and aboriginal or cultural features within the city.

The relevant implementation action is:

Applying the Heritage Overlay to protect all identified heritage precincts and individual heritage places of cultural, natural and aboriginal heritage significance.

Further strategic work listed includes:

Undertaking study to further identify places of cultural, natural and aboriginal heritage value, and prepare strategies for their protection.

Local Planning Policy

Council advised that the relevant Local Policy is Clause 22.05 – Heritage Policy, which:

… is directed at the protection, conservation and enhancement of all heritage places.

While the principal role of the heritage policy is to guide the exercise of discretion when assessing permit applications under the HO, it is relevant to Amendment C178 in that it includes Statements of Significance for all precincts covered by the Heritage Overlay. Amendment C178 proposes to add the statement of significance for the Grange Avenue Residential Precinct (HO590) to the policy and to include the full citation in the list of policy references.

The heritage policy advises (at 22.05‐4) that:

Where prepared, statements of significance for individual heritage places can be found in the heritage studies referenced in this Scheme at Clause 22.05‐7.

Amendment C178 does not propose to add the citations for the individual significant places to the policy references.


Page 6 of 48

2.3 Planning scheme provisions

2.3.1 Zones

Places proposed for inclusion under the HO in Amendment C178 are covered by three zones: Clause 32.09 – Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 3 (NRZ3); Clause 32.08 – General Residential Zone – Schedules 1 and 3 (GRZ1 and GRZ3); and Clause 34.01 – Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z). Those properties referred to the Panel and dealt with in this report are zoned as follows:

HO590 (2, 4, 6, 8 & 10 Grange Avenue, Canterbury) – NRZ3

HO591 (13‐15 Irilbarra Road, Canterbury) – NRZ3

HO593 (165 Whitehorse Road, Deepdene) – C1Z

HO594 (59 Auburn Road, Hawthorn) – GRZ3

HO600 (4A Montrose Street, Hawthorn East) – C1Z

HO603 (415‐417 High Street, Kew) – GRZ3

HO20 (1045 Burke Road, Hawthorn East) – NRZ3.

The specific purposes of the NRZ are:

To recognise areas of predominantly single and double storey residential development.

To limit opportunities for increased residential development.

To manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics.

To implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines.

To allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non‐residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations.

The Zone provides that, unless a different number is specified in a schedule, the maximum number of dwellings on a lot is two. Similarly, the building height of a dwelling or residential building must not exceed eight metres, or nine metres on a sloping site, unless this is varied by a schedule.

Schedule 3 to the NRZ in the Boroondara Planning Scheme applies to all areas of that Zone in Boroondara. It requires a permit to construct or extend a dwelling on a lot smaller than 500 square metres. It does not vary any ‘ResCode’ provisions in Clauses 54 and 55, or specify a maximum number of dwellings on a lot or a maximum building height for a dwelling or residential building. This means that the density and height provisions in Clause 32.09 apply.

The specific purposes of the GRZ are:

To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area.


Page 7 of 48

To implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines.

To provide a diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth in locations offering good access to services and transport.

To allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non‐residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations.

Schedule 3 to the GRZ in the Boroondara Planning Scheme is titled Eclectic Inner Urban and Eclectic Suburban Precincts. It requires a permit to construct or extend a dwelling on a lot smaller than 500 square metres. It does not vary any ‘ResCode’ provisions in Clauses 54 and 55. It provides that the maximum building height of a dwelling or residential building must not exceed 10.5 metres, or 11.5 metres on a sloping site.

The specific purposes of the C1Z are:

To create vibrant mixed use commercial centres for retail, office, business, entertainment and community uses.

To provide for residential uses at densities complementary to the role and scale of the commercial centre.

2.3.2 Overlays

(i) Overlay controls at the time of exhibition of Amendment C178

At the time Amendment C178 was exhibited, no overlays applied to the properties at

13‐15 Irilbarra Road, Canterbury

59 Auburn Road, Hawthorn

415‐417 High Street, Kew.

‘Arden’ at 1045 Burke Road, Hawthorn East had an existing HO but no additional controls applied in the schedule.

The commercial properties at 4A Montrose Street, Hawthorn East and 165 Whitehorse Road, Deepdene were both covered by a Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 16 and a Parking Overlay – Precinct 1. The Montrose Street site was also subject to an Environmental Audit Overlay.

(ii) Amendment C211 – Interim heritage controls

Council had requested the Minister for Planning to prepare an amendment to apply interim HO controls to those properties included in Amendment C178. The Panel was advised on day 2 of the Hearing that a letter had been received from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning advising that the Minister’s delegate had decided to prepare, adopt and approve Amendment C211 to the Boroondara Planning Scheme. This applies the HO (with additional controls where relevant) to all but two of the places covered by Amendment C178.

The places that were not given interim protection were 13‐15 Irilbarra Road, Canterbury and 4A Montrose Street, Hawthorn. The delegate’s letter said:


Page 8 of 48

The Department has been made aware that there are two properties that have sought demolition permits.

In regard to 13‐15 Irilbarra Road, Canterbury, it is considered that use of the Minister’s powers of intervention would not be an appropriate response to the scale of the development that is proposed in this particular instance.

As for, 4A Montrose Street, Hawthorn, the introduction of an interim Heritage Overlay is not consistent with sound, co‐ordinated and integrated planning given that the site is in an Activity Centre that foreshadows new development opportunities.

The effect of Amendment C211 is to apply the HO on an interim basis to the following sites that are the subjects of this report:

HO590 – 2, 4, 6, 8 & 10 Grange Avenue, Canterbury

HO593 – 165 Whitehorse Road, Deepdene

HO594 – 59 Auburn Road, Hawthorn

HO603 – 415‐417 High Street, Kew

(iii) Heritage Overlay

The HO aims to conserve and enhance heritage places of natural and cultural heritage significance, including those elements that contribute to the significance of the place. It seeks to ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places. Additional controls may be applied to require a permit to paint external surfaces or to lop or remove a tree. Notification and review may be required for significant fences and outbuildings. Uses that would otherwise be prohibited may be allowed if this would demonstrably assist in the conservation of the significance of the heritage place.

A permit is required to subdivide land, demolish or remove a building, or to construct or carry out works, except for repairs and maintenance that use the same materials and do not change the appearance of the heritage place (and other minor exemptions specified in the clause).

(iv) Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 16

Schedule 16 to the Design and Development Overlay (Clause 43.02) is titled Neighbourhood Centres and Commercial Corridors. Its design objectives are:

To ensure the height and setbacks of development maintain and enhance:

the established streetscape and traditional, low‐rise, high street character of neighbourhood centres.

the established streetscape and commercial character of the commercial corridors.

To achieve innovative, high quality architectural design that makes efficient use of land whilst enhancing the appearance and strengthening the identity of the neighbourhood centres and commercial corridors.

To ensure appropriate development that is complementary to the existing neighbourhood character and has regard to adjoining residential amenity.


Page 9 of 48

To ensure development respects and enhances identified heritage buildings and precincts.

Permits are required for subdivision and for most buildings and works. The schedule sets a mandatory maximum building height and prescribes setbacks from the street, public open space and public car‐parks.

Table 32 provides height and setback requirements for the Burwood/Camberwell Road Commercial Corridor, including buildings fronting onto Montrose Street, Hawthorn East.

One decision guideline refers specifically to heritage:

Whether the design of the proposed development supports the provisions of this planning scheme and in particular:

Clause 22.05 Heritage Policy.

(v) Parking Overlay – Precinct 1

Schedule 1 to the Parking Overlay (Clause 45.09) identifies appropriate car parking rates for land uses in various activity centres throughout the municipality.

(vi) Environmental Audit Overlay

The Environmental Audit Overlay (Clause 45.03) seeks:

To ensure that potentially contaminated land is suitable for a use which could be significantly adversely affected by any contamination.

The Overlay requires an environmental audit to be carried out before a sensitive use – residential use, child care centre, pre‐school centre or primary school – commences or before the construction or carrying out of buildings and works in association with such use begins.

2.4 Other studies

2.4.1 Heritage studies for predecessor municipalities

The City of Boroondara is made up of the previous Cities of Camberwell, Hawthorn and Kew. Previous heritage studies carried out for these areas include:

Kew Heritage Study 1988

Camberwell Urban Conservation Study 1991

Hawthorn Heritage Study 1993.

In each case, some places that were recommended for heritage protection have not been added the HO.

2.4.2 City of Boroondara Thematic Environmental History 2012

Heritage Victoria’s standard brief for local heritage studies requires the preparation of a thematic environmental history for each municipality.

The City of Boroondara’s Thematic Environmental History was produced by Built Heritage Pty Ltd and adopted by Council 2012.

The Thematic Environmental History was prepared to:


Page 10 of 48

…document and illustrate how various themes (and the many aspects of human intervention associated with them) have manifested themselves in the city of Boroondara since the first post‐contact European settlement, and, consequently, how these themes have shaped the municipality as it is today. In this way the TEH provides a context for heritage places and areas that have been identified (and will continue to be identified) across the entire City of Boroondara.

The Thematic Environmental History represents a consolidation of the historical overviews that formed part of the heritage studies for the former Cities of Hawthorn, Kew and Camberwell, supplemented by additional research into themes that were under‐represented or unrepresented in the earlier summaries. The themes were derived from Victoria’s Framework of Historic Themes, published by Heritage Council of Victoria in 2010.

The Thematic Environmental History includes a Statement of Significance for the City of Boroondara and detailed discussions of the themes and sub‐themes relevant to the development of the municipality. ‘Related places’ are listed for each sub‐theme discussed. Some of these places were identified as already being covered by the HO, but many were not.

2.5 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes

2.5.1 Ministerial Directions

Council submitted that the Amendment is consistent with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes and complies with Minister’s Directions No 9 on the Metropolitan Strategy and will not compromise the implementation of Plan Melbourne. In addition, Council put the view that it is consistent with a Minister’s Direction No 11 on Strategic Assessment of Amendments.

2.5.2 Practice Notes

Council pointed to the advice of the Victoria Planning Provisions Practice Note No 1 –Applying the Heritage Overlay, concerning the types of places that should be included in the HO, and the requirements relating to thresholds for listing and documentation required, including that all places:

…should be documented in a manner that clearly substantiates their scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest or other special cultural or natural values

and

…the documentation for each place should include a statement of significance that clearly establishes the importance of the place.

Council submitted that the citations prepared for the 26 properties affected by Amendment C178 comply with the practice note requirements for writing statements of significance.


Page 11 of 48

2.6 Discussion

The Panel notes the legislative basis for identification and protection of places of local heritage significance through planning schemes and the support provided in the SPPF and the LPPF. It also notes that the new residential zones include objectives that seek to ensure development is compatible with neighbourhood character, including heritage. Even Schedule 16 to the Design and Development Overlay, applying to commercial areas, encourages development that is complementary to the established streetscape and traditional, low‐rise, high street character of neighbourhood centres.

In this context, application of an HO to places of demonstrated heritage significance is clearly compatible with the planning provisions applying to the relevant sites.

The Panel concludes that the Amendment is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework.


Page 12 of 48

3 Identification and Assessment Processes

3.1 The Issue

The Panel has to be confident that the way in which places were identified as having potential heritage significance is appropriate, and the process used for their assessment and proposed addition to the HO was robust and meets the requirements of Planning Practice Note No 1 – Applying the Heritage Overlay.

The identification of places and the methodology used in the assessments is set out below for places dealt with by Context Pty Ltd. Matters relating to 4A Montrose Street are covered in Chapter 5.5.

3.2 Evidence on behalf of Council – Ms N Schmeder

Ms Schmeder’s expert witness statement on behalf of Council stated:

The place and precinct citations whose recommendations comprise Amendment C178 were prepared individually, and not as part of a formal heritage study. For this reason, no background report has been prepared to explain the assessment methodology and to summarise the findings and recommendations.

Instead, this background and methodology are set out in this report, which should be taken as the strategic basis of Amendment C178 along with the place and precinct citations.

Ms Schmeder pointed to the advice of the Practice Note on applying the HO that places to be included under the HO should include, but not be limited to, those listed on the Register of the National Estate (RNE) or the National Trust Register (NTR) or identified in a local heritage study, provided, in the latter two cases, that the significance of the place can be shown to justify the application of the overlay. The Practice Note also recommends the use of what are known as the ‘HERCON’ heritage criteria (Appendix C).

Ms Schmeder went on to outline the requirement for a Thematic Environmental History to be prepared for a municipality, as part of a local heritage study and the way in which it is then used to identify places of potential heritage value, assist in assessing their significance and provide comparative examples representing the same theme(s). Given that the predecessors to the City of Boroondara had already undertaken heritage studies, Ms Schmeder described the Thematic Environmental History as a tool to better understand what gaps there might be in existing HOs and to support the assessment of new places.

In line with the priority identified in the Heritage Action Plan, Council’s Strategic Planning Department prepared a list of potential heritage places that required further investigation. These included, in addition to RNE and NT places and those identified in the Thematic Environmental History, places from the earlier studies that had not been added to the HO or reassessed. Additional sources of nominations were a survey of post‐war built heritage in Victoria (prepared for Heritage Victoria), the Royal Australian Institute of Architects 20th Century Register and nominations from the community.


Page 13 of 48

Ms Schmeder said she and another Context consultant assessed a total of 56 individual places and one potential precinct. Of those assessed, 33 individual places were found to fall below the threshold of local significance. The remaining individual places and the precinct were recommended for protection. Citations, including statements of significance, were prepared for them (or upgraded, where they already existed). These included all but one of the places proposed for application of an HO in Amendment C178. An additional place was identified through a referral under Section 29A of the Building Act, 1978 and also proposed for heritage controls.

The process undertaken by Context to assess places, Ms Schmeder said, used the Burra Charter1 and its guidelines and was consistent with the Practice Note on applying the HO. The methodology also took into account comments on thresholds in the 2007 Advisory Committee report on Heritage Provisions in Planning Schemes and the tests in the recent Victorian Heritage Register Criteria and Thresholds Guidelines (2012) endorsed by the Heritage Council of Victoria, with appropriate adjustments for the local level of significance.

The assessment process included: site inspections; historical research; comparative analysis; assessment against the HERCON criteria; and statutory recommendations, including HO mapping, application of additional controls (external painting, trees) and identification of fences or outbuildings for which permit applications should not be exempt from notification and review.

After the citations were prepared, Council undertook a round of preliminary consultations with owners, prior to formal exhibition of Amendment C178, to enable them to comment on information presented. In some cases, corrections and additions were made to citations on the basis of new material supplied by owners.

Additional controls were initially recommended for several properties forming part of Amendment C178, including external painting and tree controls for 59 Auburn Road, Hawthorn and tree controls and fence and outbuilding notification requirements for 1045 Burke Road, Hawthorn East. By the time of the hearing, on the basis of new information provided, Ms Schmeder had recommended that the tree controls for both properties be omitted. Council had accepted this advice.

Ms Schmeder also provided a matrix recording the source of the original identification of each place and precinct included in Amendment C178 as a place of potential heritage significance. Those relevant to this Panel report are shown in Table 2.

1 Australia ICOMOS (1999, revised 2013) Charter for Places of Cultural Heritage Significance


Page 14 of 48

Table 2 Source of identification of places as having potential heritage significance

Place name Address Nomination source

Grange Avenue Residential Precinct

2,4,6,8 & 10 Grange Avenue, Canterbury

Camberwell Conservation Study 1991

Murradoc 13‐15 Irilbarra Road, Canterbury National Trust Register & Camberwell Conservation Study 1991

Deepdene Post Office (former)

165 Whitehorse Road, Deepdene

Boroondara Thematic Environment History 2012

Astolat Ladies College (former)

59 Auburn Road, Hawthorn City of Boroondara’s Heritage Advisor & Hawthorn Heritage Study 1993

Arden 1045 Burke Road, Hawthorn East

Hawthorn Heritage Study 1993

Timber shop 415‐417 High Street, Kew Kew Historical Society & Kew Conservation Study 1987.

Ms Schmeder considered that the places proposed for HO protection had been assessed through a rigorous process. She said that the threshold for significance in Boroondara was very high, particularly for architectural/aesthetic significance, due to the fine architectural quality of the built form in the municipality.

In response to a question from the Panel, Ms Schmeder said that some of the places not recommended for addition to the HO had derived from the Thematic Environmental History’s lists of ‘related places’. Although they were connected with important sub‐themes, this was more at the level of ‘interest’ rather than significance, for example, a well‐known author had lived there, but only for a few years. Other places had been demolished or undergone recent alterations that reduced their significance. A proposed post‐war precinct in the vicinity of an existing precinct in Raheen Drive, Kew (suggested by community members) was assessed as having less consistent built form that was not of similar quality. Some post‐war architect‐designed houses were also found to be of lower quality that those proposed for listing.

Ms Schmeder’s evidence relating to the proposed precinct and to individual properties will be discussed in Chapters 4 and 5.

3.3 Submissions

Two submissions queried the thoroughness of the comparative assessments undertaken for particular properties. One noted that a comparative example included in the citation was a place assessed as contributory within a precinct, which it said proved that the property in question was not of local significance in its own right. The other provided photographs of buildings nearby or elsewhere in the municipality, which the submitter held to be similar but superior to the subject property.

Council and Ms Schmeder pointed out that the addresses of the buildings illustrated in the latter submission were not provided, so it was not possible to determine whether they were already included under the HO.


Page 15 of 48

Mr Nickas, for Bolalo Pty Ltd, stressed the need for rigour in the assessment of places proposed for an HO, particularly one that is to be applied on a site‐specific basis. He put the view that the reason the shop at 165 Whitehorse Road, Deepdene was not graded in previous heritage studies, and did not form part of any precinct identified in them, was that it did not warrant a heritage control. He noted that, in the present case, the building was not identified through any heritage study but had been assessed on an individual basis.

Mr Nickas also claimed that because Ms Schmeder of Context Pty Ltd was contracted by Council to assess high priority places, she was not a ‘truly independent’ expert and her evidence should therefore be given less weight. He suggested that Council could have called for a peer review of the citations for places included in Amendment C178.

The evidence of experts called by owners of individual properties will be considered in Chapter 5.

3.4 Discussion and conclusions

The Panel notes that the places proposed for listing under the HO through Amendment C178 fall into the categories of places identified in Council’s Heritage Action Plan as having high priority for assessment, that is: properties graded B or C* in former heritage studies which are not in an HO and have not been reviewed since their initial grading; and places listed in the Boroondara Thematic Environmental History, particularly post war architect designed buildings. Two were on the NTR, in addition to having been identified in previous studies.

In the Panel’s opinion, the Heritage Action Plan provides sufficient strategic context to support the addition of relevant places to the HO, providing they are found to be of local heritage significance. The fact that a building had been overlooked in previous heritage studies does not imply that it has no, or marginal, heritage significance. Studies, especially older studies, may have had a particular focus, in terms of a development period or heritage values (particularly pre‐World War I and architectural/aesthetic values). As time passes and the concept of heritage broadens, more recently built properties or those representing different themes or values, such as social significance, may be identified as important. This is, in fact, one of the reasons why thematic environmental histories are now required, to ensure that all potential heritage values and relevant themes are identified and places associated with them evaluated. The Panel does not believe that the way in which a place came to the attention of Council is of any relevance, as against the robustness of the assessment of its heritage significance.

The Panel considers that the assessment process described by Ms Schmeder is consistent with the Burra Charter and the practice note on applying the HO. It used the recommended criteria, prepared a detailed citation and a statement of significance (in the standard format) for each place, involved comparative analysis, and applied a threshold of local significance. Places that the consultants found did not meet the threshold were excluded from the amendment.

In endorsing the methodology, the Panel does not say that there is no room for debate over the heritage merits of particular properties, particularly where additional information has been supplied. However, subsequent recommendations on whether specific places should be omitted from the Amendment should not be taken to invalidate the overall methodology.


Page 16 of 48

With regard to the claimed lack of independence of Ms Schmeder, the Panel rejects this outright. It is normal practice for Panels to hear expert evidence from the consultants that have carried out local heritage studies. Peer reviews are seldom called for, except in rare cases such as where the studies relied on are old and/or where the people who undertook the study are unavailable. In this case, where most of the subject properties were identified and documented in earlier studies, the process undertaken by Context Pty Ltd, mainly Ms Schmeder, is effectively a re‐evaluation of the original findings and citations.

In conclusion, the Panel notes that, whereas the heritage policy (at Clause 22.05) advises that the statements of significance for other individually significant places in Boroondara can be found in the heritage studies included in the policy references (22.05‐7), Council has not put forward any proposal about where the statements of significance for the places included in this Amendment are to be housed. The Panel has concluded that these should also be included, as a group, as a policy reference.

3.5 Recommendation

The Panel recommends:

Add the statements of significance for individual places recommended for listing on the Heritage Overlay through Amendment C178 (collected together into a single document, titled ‘Individually Significant Heritage Places – Amendment C178’ or similar) to the policy references in sub‐clause 22.05‐7.


Page 17 of 48

4 Heritage Precinct

4.1 HO590 Grange Avenue Heritage Precinct

4.2 Description of Precinct

The Grange Avenue Precinct comprises five inter‐war dwellings on the north side of the street, west of Balwyn Road in Canterbury. An avenue of mature Plane trees lines the nature strip adjoining these properties.

4.3 Statement of Significance (extract)

How is it significant?

The Grange Avenue Precinct, at 2‐10 Grange Avenue, Canterbury is of local historical and aesthetic significance to the City of Boroondara.

Why is it significant?

The Grange Avenue Precinct is of historic significance as a subdivision that is representative of small‐scale interwar subdivisions in the former City of Camberwell, which saw the breakup of large estates, such as ‘The Grange’, into middle‐class residential areas including Grange Avenue and View Street. The substantial nature and high quality of the design of the houses at 2‐10 Grange Avenue exemplify the quintessential middle‐class interwar character for which suburbs in the former City of Camberwell are celebrated (Criterion A).


Page 18 of 48

The Grange Avenue Residential Precinct is of aesthetic significance for the strong and visually cohesive streetscape created by the row of houses which share a common style, setback, scale, major roof forms, materials and decorative details. Paired with their overall visual unity, the houses are individually and skilfully designed variations on a theme, expressed by different combinations of secondary roof gables and dormers, verandah supports and leadlight windows. They are also high quality interwar houses, at least one of architect design, which are substantial for the area, and good examples of the Arts & Crafts attic‐style bungalow. They are generally highly intact to their period of construction, and have been well maintained. They are enhanced by the mature Plane street trees on the wide nature strip (Criteria D & E).

No 2 Grange Avenue is particularly distinguished by its superior level of detail and finishes, particularly seen in the complex massing of the front gable, the gabled 'roof' above the front bay window, and the fine brickwork of the arched brick porch entry. It helps demonstrates the evolution of architect Arthur Bidgway's high‐quality middle‐class houses from the Victorian and Edwardian villas found in Port Melbourne, to this very up‐to‐date interpretation of the Arts and Crafts style with California Bungalow elements in 1921 (Criteria E & H).

The Amendment proposes that the Planning Scheme Map and Schedule to the HO be amended to include the precinct as HO590 and that Clause 22.05 – Heritage Policy be amended to insert ‘HO590 Grange Avenue Residential Heritage Precinct’ with the citation for the Precinct included as a Reference document.

4.4 Evidence and submissions

A written submission objecting to the application of the HO to 2 Grange Avenue, Canterbury was received from the owner of that property.

It was the owner’s submission that the property was contributory only being an undistinguished example of its type. Furthermore it was stated that the heritage significance of the street had been degraded because of the redevelopment of properties on its south side and the heritage overlay was both inappropriate and unfair on owners.

This owner did not appear at the Hearing to make a submission to the Panel.

In response to this written submission it was Ms Schmeder’s evidence that 2 Grange Avenue is a fine and intact example of an interwar house compared to others of its type and warrants its grading as a significant property in the Grange Avenue Residential Precinct. Ms Schmeder reiterated the information in the statement of significance that the house was designed by a recognised architect. She stated that it compared well when benchmarked against other late Federation and Interwar Arts and Crafts bungalows on the Boroondara Heritage Overlay.

In response to the view that development on the south side of the street had degraded the significance of this precinct, Ms Schmeder stated that the more recent dwellings opposite were not intrusive in their scale and did not have a negative effect on the street. She also


Page 19 of 48

referred to other examples where properties on one side of a street formed a heritage precinct.

4.5 Discussion and conclusions

The Panel has considered the written submission of the property owner, however, based on its inspection of Grange Avenue and the evidence of Ms Schmeder, it supports the application of HO590 to 2, 4, 6 8 and 10 Grange Avenue, Canterbury.

It also supports the inclusion of its statement of significance in Clause 22.05 ‐ Heritage Policy and the referencing of the citation in the Scheme.


Page 20 of 48

5 Individual Heritage Places

5.1 HO594 59 Auburn Road, Hawthorn

5.1.1 Site Description

59 Auburn Road, Hawthorn is an attic‐style brick house that was built in the late 19th century for occupation as a private school. The domestic scale and detail of the building means it complemented its residential setting at the time.

5.1.2 Revised Statement of Significance (extract)


The former Astolat Ladies College is of local historical and aesthetic significance to the City of Boroondara.


Historically, the former Astolat is a tangible illustration of the era in the late 19th and early 20th century when secondary education was expected to lead to university for young women. Aesthetically, it is an unusual bijoux Queen Anne building of the domestic type. Despite its diminutive scale, it displays a wealth of high‐quality details in an integrated whole. These include the large arched window with a scrolled hood mould, diagonal boarding to the front


Page 21 of 48

door and sidelight, a range of cladding materials including bi‐chrome brick, roughcast render, timber shingles and half‐timbering, a gable with half‐timbering to its apex above a bay window, casement windows with small multi‐coloured highlights, bull’s eye window beneath the north chimney, and a steep transverse gable roof with terracotta ridge capping and a crow‐stepped gable to the south side.

5.1.3 Evidence and submissions

Three written submissions, including one from the property owner, objected to the application of the HO to this property. The other submissions were from the owner of a neighbouring property and a person having a potential interest in the land.

The owner made a verbal submission to the Panel, referring to its derelict condition, both externally and internally, and the considerable expense that would be required to restore it to its original condition. The submitter advised the Panel that a prospective purchaser had lost interest when made aware of the proposed HO and that, as the owner, he was not in a position financially to undertake the work required to repair the building.

It was Ms Schmeder’s evidence that although maintenance of the building has been neglected it appeared structurally sound. She referred to the accelerated rate of decay of the mortar caused by painting part of the façade of the building. She believed the paint should be carefully removed and the mortar repaired.

Ms Schmeder advised that the comparative analysis undertaken of this property found that it was one of a small number of buildings in Boroondara with a strong Scottish Baronial architectural influence. Also, it has a quality and quantity of external detail comparable to that of much larger and grander architect‐designed Queen Anne houses. As such it is termed a ‘bijoux’ style.

The exhibited Amendment included the triggers to control external painting and removal of trees, however, following receipt of the owner’s submission the statement of significance was amended to recognise the later planting of the two Norfolk Pines. The ‘Tree Controls Apply?’ column in the Schedule to the HO was also amended so as not to apply to the land.

5.1.4 Discussion and conclusions

On inspecting this property from the street, the Panel was able to discern the damage the painting of the brick façade has done to the mortar. It also observed the damage to guttering and downpipes and missing slates and tiles which point to likely water damage to the interior of the building. Given the existing condition of the building the Panel appreciates the cost that would be associated in restoring the building to its original state.

This said the Panel believes the building is significant historically because it was purpose‐built as a small private school. It also believes it is aesthetically significant.

The Panel notes that that the HO Schedule will allow prohibited uses to occupy the site (subject to permit) and an extension to the building for such purposes might also be approved. It believes this may provide an incentive to restore the existing building.


Page 22 of 48

5.1.5 Recommendation


Substitute the word ‘No’ for ‘Yes, two Norfolk Island Pines’ in the column ‘Tree Controls Apply?’ in the entry for HO594, ‘Former Astolat Ladies College’, 59 Auburn Road, Hawthorn East.

5.2 HO603 415 – 417 High Street, Kew

5.2.1 Site description

415‐417 High Street, Kew is occupied by a single storey timber building, built and occupied as a shop and dwelling. The land was originally part of the Hyde Park Company’s subdivision, which began in 1882. Changes have been made to the façade (new windows and doors) and the building has been extended at its eastern and western ends. The shop has also been re‐roofed, however its eave brackets have been retained.



The shop is of local historical and architectural significance to the City of Boroondara.


Historically, the shop is a tangible illustration of the tourist trade that grew up around Boroondara in the 19th century. In the 19th and early 20th century, the cemetery attracted large numbers of leisure day trippers from around


Page 23 of 48

Melbourne and beyond, who came to view its impressive monuments. The tram, opened in 1887 ‐ the same year as the shop was built, was the main mode of transport to the cemetery from Richmond and Melbourne until the mid‐20th century, and made this leisure traffic possible. The position of the cemetery gates and the tram terminus at the intersection of High Street and Park Hill Road made this an ideal location to cater to this tourist traffic, with a confectioner’s and later a tea room (Criterion A).

Architecturally, the shop exhibits typical traits of suburban 19th‐century shops including the integration of rear living quarters with the shop(s) at the front. Its simple form and lack of front setback are also typical of its type, as are the modest‐sized shop windows which allow for areas of solid wall to the façade. The detailing of the façade, particularly the doors with diagonal boarding and simple angle window glazing bars to the shop windows is typical of the Edwardian period. Timber shops were the first to be built in new suburbs and shopping areas in the 19th century, but were gradually replaced by brick buildings, leaving few of this type in the metropolitan area. It is the earliest known timber shop in Kew and one of a very small group of surviving Victorian and Edwardian timber shops in the City of Boroondara (Criteria D & B).


A review of this property was carried out by Mr Ian Coleman, architect and heritage consultant, for the owner who then lodged it with Council. The owner then appeared at the Hearing in opposing the HO over his property. Mr Coleman’s review of the property included a history of how the site had developed and a sketch plan showed the changes that had been made to it. In undertaking his review Mr Coleman concluded that while the core of the shop dates from and reflects the form of the 1887 building, as existing, it does not have a high level of integrity in relation to that structure and therefore its significance has been seriously compromised. It was therefore Mr Coleman’s opinion that the existing fabric of the building does not exhibit sufficient physical integrity to warrant the significance initially attached to it. While he agreed that the surviving elements provide some context to the assessment provided against Criterion A (historical significance) he believed those against Criteria B (rarity) and D (representativeness) were significantly degraded by the lack of integrity of the surviving building and therefore it would be unreasonable to impose the heritage overlay.

The owner appeared at the Hearing to speak to Mr Coleman’s review in opposing the HO over his property. Mr Coleman did not appear at the Hearing and was therefore not available to elaborate on his review or answer any questions the Panel may have had.

The contribution Mr Coleman’s review of this property made in providing additional details relating to its history was acknowledged by Council. In relation to the addition on the east side in the early part of the 20th century, Ms Schmeder stated these could be considered part of the early fabric of the building. The addition on the west side of the shop and rear residence was carried out later (c.1978) and therefore is not part of the original or significant fabric. She noted that the building had been graded ‘B’ in the Kew Heritage Study 1988, but


Page 24 of 48

had somehow been missed in the more recent review of ‘B’ and ‘C’ graded places from that study.

The owner advised the Panel that he wanted to undertake changes to the property in the future and was concerned that this would not be permitted if the HO applied to the land.

In relation to comparative analysis, Ms Schmeder said that there were not many timber shops of equivalent age in metropolitan Melbourne, let alone in Boroondara. She referred to a row of timber shops at 351 ‐ 361 Canterbury Road, Canterbury, where all but the facades of 351 and 353 are now concealed. She considered the left hand one of that pair to be superior to the High Street building, because it retained its residential scale window, and the right hand shop to be equivalent to the subject property, as it was less intact than its neighbour. Neither of these shops has been assessed for an HO. The other property referred to was an interwar shop at 11 – 13 Peel Street, which had been extensively altered and therefore fell below the threshold of local significance. Other examples cited included a two storey timber building at 458 High Street, Prahran.


The Panel found the report prepared by Mr Coleman most informative, in providing details of the changes that had been made to the shop building on the property. The Panel, however, believes that in spite of these changes the shop retains sufficient integrity to justify protection under the HO.

The building is within the GRZ3 and therefore if the shop section of the property is vacant for any length of time it could lose its existing use rights. As the significance of the building, in part, relates to its construction for occupation as a shop, the Panel believes it would be appropriate to permit the consideration of prohibited uses. The Panel is usually wary of including additional provisions in the HO schedule as a result of post‐exhibition processes, but in this case it has concluded that the addition of a ‘prohibited uses’ trigger will be a benefit to the owner and will not disadvantage other parties.



Amend the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay to include the word ‘Yes’ under the Column ‘Prohibited uses may be permitted?’ for HO603, 415–417 High Street, Kew.


Page 25 of 48

5.3 HO591 13 – 15 Irilbarra Road, Canterbury


13 ‐ 15 Irilbarra Road Canterbury is located on the west side of the street and is occupied by a single storey residence known as ‘Murradoc’ well setback from its frontage.



The former Murradoc is of local architectural and aesthetic significance to the City of Boroondara.


The former Murradoc is of architectural and aesthetic significance as a fine and externally intact example of a symmetrical rendered Victorian Italianate villa. It is distinguished by the high‐quality and extensive cement‐render ornamentation which includes incised stencil decorations, quoining, vermiculated window sills and acanthus‐leaf capitals, yielded panels and fluting to the chimneys, and interlocking circle balustrade and orbs to the tower element. Also by its very intact verandah with paired cast‐iron posts and an unusual cast‐iron frieze pattern (Criteria D & E).


Page 26 of 48


The owner lodged a written submission to the Amendment and appeared at the Hearing in opposing the HO over his property. In his submission to Council the owner referred to what he believed were a number of errors in the citation for the property. This led to it being revised to reflect historical information provided by the submitter. In the absence of an on‐site inspection being able to be arranged by Council officers with the owners matters raised in relation to what the citation describes as the ‘tower element’ and verandah could not be verified.

In presenting his detailed submission to the Panel the owner raised these same matters and relied upon an historic photograph in stating that the tiles, floor and lacework of the verandah were not original. The owner also referred to the ‘tower feature’ on the south side of the dwelling, which he said was a much later addition. He also said that the verandah post bases had been shortened at some stage.

The owner referred to photographs he had taken of other dwellings, including some in proximity to his property. Addresses of these properties were not provided.

Ms Schmeder advised the Panel that the citation for the property had been amended to reflect historical material supplied by the owner, however, in the absence of a site inspection which the owners were unwilling to agree to, the issue of the originality of the verandah and the later construction of the ‘tower element’ could not be verified.

In relation to the historical photograph provided by the submitter which showed a cast‐iron frieze in a timber frame, Ms Schmeder stated that the poor quality of the photograph meant it was not possible to confirm it was of 13 – 15 Irilbarra Road. In her response to the submission she advised that the submitter had been requested to provide contact details regarding the source of the photograph, however, no response had been received. A request to inspect the house more closely had also been rejected.

It was Ms Schmeder’s evidence that ‘tower elements’ were common to Italianate houses of the 1870’s and 1880’s. She pointed out that it was shown on the MMBW plan from 1905, so that even if it was built somewhat later than the rest of the house, she considered it was still part of the significant fabric.

In relation to the photographs of other houses provided by the owner, without addresses it was not possible to check if they were protected under the HO. In the case of the property on the corner of Prospect Hill Road and Trafalgar Road, Ms Schmeder advised that this was within a precinct heritage overlay.

In summary, it was Ms Schmeder’s opinion that the architectural and aesthetic significance of the dwelling at 11 – 13 Irilbarra Road had been established and that it should be protected by the HO. Ms Schmeder, however, advised the Panel that the decision not to apply interim heritage control over the property, and the fact that the Council has now provided its consent, to the issue of a building permit to demolish part of the wall to the side verandah to enable a second ‘tower element’ to be built, that the significance of the dwelling will be diminished. In the event that this work proceeds, Ms Schmeder advised that she would not be able to support applying the HO to the property.


Page 27 of 48


Based on its view of this property from the street, and in the absence of an accompanied inspection to verify material provided by the owner, the Panel believes it is not in a position to ignore the evidence of Ms Schmeder in relation to this property. The Panel believes it was unfortunate that the owner chose not to agree to an accompanied inspection of the dwelling which would possibly have verified matters he raised at the Hearing. In relation to the historic photograph the owner relied on in submitting that changes had been made to the verandah, without professional evidence in the matter the Panel is not in a position to accept that the photograph is of ‘Murradoc’.

The Panel notes the decision made by the Minister’s delegate not to apply interim heritage controls to 13‐15 Irilbarra Road, Canterbury on the basis ‘that use of the Minister’s powers of intervention would not be an appropriate response to the scale of the development that is proposed in this particular instance’.

The Panel believes that the decision not to provide interim heritage protection, and the fact that a permit can now be issued to proceed with alterations to the dwelling, does not mean that due process, including the Panel process, should not be completed to ascertain apply the HO should be applied to the property.

The Panel does, however, understand that, based on Ms Schmeder’s advice to it at the Hearing, if the proposed demolition and building work proceeds this will diminish the significance of the dwelling to the point that she will not support heritage protection of the property.

However, until this construction work occurs and the heritage significance of the property is reviewed, the Panel supports the HO being applied as proposed by the Amendment and subject to the revised citation, prepared post exhibition, being made a reference document.


Page 28 of 48

5.4 HO593 165 Whitehorse Road, Deepdene


165 Whitehorse Road is occupied by a single storey shop located on the north side of the street between Leopold and Terry Streets. Adjoining properties are occupied by single storey buildings built in the post‐war period.

5.4.2 Statement of Significance (extract)


The former Deepdene Post Office is of local historical and aesthetic significance to the City of Boroondara.


The former Deepdene Post Office is of historical significance as a rare survivor of the earliest phase of commercial development in Deepdene, prior to the rush of development that followed the replacement of the old horse‐drawn tram line down Whitehorse road with an electric service in 1916. It also illustrates the provision of 'agency' postal services from private commercial premises, which was seen in the early development of localities, such as the Hawthorn Post Office of the 1860s, and in smaller commercial centres (Criteria A & B).


Page 29 of 48

The former Deepdene Post Office is good, representative, and externally intact Federation Freestyle commercial building. Features of note include the front parapet with two undulating curves which meet in the middle and are mirrored on the bottom half of the parapet in raised render. As is typical of the style, the parapet sits between two raised piers, here with scrolled wrought‐iron plates fixed to the face and pyramidal caps at the top. The shop also retains its original shopfront by Duff shopfitters, with metal‐framed windows, recessed entry and a battered and tiled stallboard (Criterion D).


A written submission was lodged with Council by Best Hooper Solicitors, for the owner of the subject property, objecting to its inclusion in the HO. This submission included a letter from Bryce Raworth, conservation architect commenting on the Amendment and the citation prepared for the site by Context Pty Ltd.

Mr Nickas of Best Hooper appeared at the Panel and called evidence from Mr Raworth and Mr Barrett. Mr Nickas advised the Panel that the subject site is part of a larger land holding at 159 to 171 Whitehorse Road, owned by his client. It was Mr Nickas’ submission that in this case there had been insufficient rigor and justification to warrant the inclusion of 165 Whitehorse Road in an individual HO. In relation to social and economic effects Mr Nickas accepted that, at the amendment stage, these relate to broader community effects. This said, he submitted that as part of a larger land holding, from a community perspective, it represents a significant opportunity to deliver a development that advances strategic objectives for land in the C1Z.

It was the Ms Liu’s submission for Council that the subject building is ‘a highly intact Federation Free Style commercial building in Boroondara that warrants inclusion in the Heritage Overlay’. In relation to social and economic effects, Ms Liu stated no proposal to redevelop the land had been lodged with Council. It was also her submission that there was no evidence to suggest that the inclusion of the land in the HO would prevent a development in accordance with the zone and overlay objectives which would result in a community benefit.

In relation to the former use of this building as a post office agency it was Ms Schmeder’s evidence that apart from this example, the earliest one noted in the municipality was the 1949 former temporary Ashburton Post Office at 285B High Street, Ashburton.

The citation prepared by Context Pty Ltd for this site refers to the fact that at the time the Commonwealth was created in 1901 there were over 7,000 post offices in Australia and more than 6,000 staff serving in a non‐official capacity as post‐masters and post‐mistresses. Following Federation, the Commonwealth assumed control for the design of post offices.

The Citation states that ‘provisional’ and ‘non‐official’ post offices first opened in the 1850s and prior to the first purpose‐built post office opening in Hawthorn in 1871‐2, a draper in that area operated an agency from his shop. It was also stated that in the 1950s there was apparently a significant increase in the number of agencies or non‐official post offices operating in conjunction with other businesses. In the case of the subject land, the 1915 street directory notes a house being built at 165 and part of 163 Whitehorse Road and the


Page 30 of 48

following year the ‘Deepdene Post Office and confectionary’ was recorded on the site, operated by Mrs E M Davenport, post mistress. Other sources referring to the Deepdene Post Office in 1913 suggest it may have initially operated from another location.

Between 1929 and 1938 the post office is not listed for the property and therefore it is not known whether it ceased or was simply not listed in the directories for that period. From 1930 it was again listed, continuing until 1970. The Panel was advised that the current Deepdene Post Office is located nearby in a two storey interwar shop at 65 Whitehorse Road.

It was Ms Schmeder’s evidence that this early example of a privately built and operated post office at 165 Whitehorse Road is of local historical significance even though there is no evidence of the use remaining in the physical fabric of the building.

In relation to its rarity she said that, as a surviving example of an early commercial building, it meets the criterion for significance at a local level. Ms Schmeder referred to its reasonably intact facade, and the fact that almost all of the alterations that have been made to it are reversible. By way of comparative analysis, Ms Schmeder identified the two storey building at 877 Burke Road Camberwell as most closely comparing to this building as both are modest, but attractively detailed buildings. Within the Deepdene precinct the shop at 137 Whitehorse Road was also identified as possibly dating from the pre‐1916 period although it is simpler in style and less intact than the shop at 165 Whitehorse Road.

Both Mr Raworth and Mr Barrett gave evidence for the owner of the property. Both referred to the fact that the shop was originally part of a larger building and the removal of the dwelling had impacted on any heritage value it may have once had. Mr Barrett described the resulting roof form as ‘peculiar’ and ‘truncated’. Mr Barrett also referred to the existing verandah, which was not original, and therefore cannot be considered to add any appreciable heritage value to the building. He stated that the steel plates fixed to the parapet are contemporaneous to the current verandah, and not part of the original timber post verandah.

It was Mr Barrett’s evidence that it was unlikely that the shop was purpose‐built as a Post Office. In his opinion it was more likely that it was established as a side‐line to the Davenport’s confectionary and grocery business operating from the shop. He stated that locating post office agencies in shops was relatively common in metropolitan Melbourne, particularly in smaller shopping centres, and he and Mr Raworth referred to a number of examples where this had occurred in the past. Mr Raworth also referred to a number of current‐day examples where post office agencies occupied floor space in shops in Boroondara. Mr Raworth noted that it was not apparent as to what attempt had been made to identify other examples of where this had occurred, for comparative analysis.

It was Mr Raworth’s evidence that, while the building’s role as a post office agency and early shop in Deepdene may be of some local historical interest that did not make it historically significant at the local level. Furthermore, he stated that post office agencies were no more important or essential to daily life than other businesses providing basic goods and services.

Mr Raworth referred the Panel to Amendment C116 which proposed to apply the HO to 629 Canterbury Road, Surrey Hills. Mr Raworth believed that, as an example of an Edwardian


Page 31 of 48

commercial building, it was superior to 165 Whitehorse Road, although in his opinion it was also not worthy of individual heritage protection. The C116 Panel accepted Mr Raworth’s evidence in relation to that building. Mr Raworth also stated the former use of 629 Canterbury Road as a butcher shop was not evident in its fabric, which presented in a representative retail manner. He said the same could be said for 165 Whitehorse Road.

It was Mr Raworth’s opinion that while a commercial building of this relatively minor level of individual interest may be considered to have contributory value, if within a precinct containing buildings of a similar era and character, it is not of individual significance. Mr Raworth believed it was ‘instructive’ that the building at 877 Burke Road Camberwell, that was found to be most comparable with 165 Whitehorse Road, is listed as a ‘contributory’ place within a precinct, not as an individually significant building at the local level.

In relation to the shop at 137 Whitehorse Road, which also possibly dates from the pre‐1916 period Mr Raworth believed that although it has a plainer parapet, it ‘is enhanced by it forming a group of four early twentieth century shops in this shopping centre’.


The Panel has inspected the site and local area and has considered the submissions and evidence presented to it in forming its views as to the significance of this property.

In relation to the occupation of the building as a post office, the Panel believes that, based on the historical material in the citation and evidence provided to it, it is not possible to determine whether the post office agency, or the confectionery / grocery business, was the primary use operating in the shop premises. The Panel, however, believes it is clear from the citation and evidence that privately run post office agencies were operated from shops that were not built specifically for that purpose. This apparently was not uncommon in the early twentieth century.

In relation to this particular agency the Panel accepts that, while it would have provided an important service to its local community the same could probably be said for the grocery business occupying the shop and also other nearby businesses. The Panel also believes that the use would have been no more important here than those operating in other shopping centres in the general Balwyn area at that time.

The Panel acknowledges the advice of the Heritage Council’s criteria and threshold guidelines that historical significance may be based on documentation rather than necessarily being visible in fabric. In this case, however, the Panel believes that the absence of any evidence in the building fabric that a post office agency once occupied the site diminishes the significance of the place, which in its view was neither a unique or remarkable occupancy in this small commercial centre.

As there is no physical evidence of the former post office in the subject building the question is whether the shop, as one of the few early commercial buildings remaining in Deepdene or, as stated in the Citation, a ‘rare survivor of the earliest phase of development in Deepdene’, is historically significant at the local level (underlining added). The Panel accepts that Deepdene is now recognised as a separate locality with its own postcode, but has concluded that it is not a sufficiently significant geographical component of Boroondara (or even the former municipality of Camberwell) for local significance to be attributed to it on this basis.


Page 32 of 48

Turning to the architectural significance attributed to the building, it is one of perhaps two remaining examples of buildings representative of the Federation (or Classical) Free style built in Deepdene, the other being the more modest building occupying 137 Whitehorse Road. The Panel accepts that the subject building is reasonably intact and the alterations that have been made to it are possibly reversible. The Panel, however, also accepts Mr Raworth’s evidence that it is not a particularly rare style in the municipality and therefore the question is whether it should be given individual heritage protection.

The Panel believes the findings of the C116 Panel, in relation to 629 Canterbury Road are instructive, where it was found that while that building had some historic significance and could have been considered a contributory building in a precinct, it did not have sufficient individual local significance to warrant applying an individual HO.

The Panel believes that the same can be said for the subject site. That is, while the building may qualify as a contributory building if located in a heritage precinct, it does not have the level of significance required to qualify as an individually significant building. The Panel also believes that while the inclusion of a post office agency in the building was part of the early development of Deepdene, the use itself was not particularly rare in smaller centres.



Delete the property at 165 Whitehorse Road, Deepdene (HO593) from the Heritage Overlay.


Page 33 of 48

5.5 HO600 4A Montrose Street, Hawthorn


4A Montrose Street is located on the west side of the street, north of Burwood Road, Hawthorn. An office occupies the existing two storey building which is bounded on either side by multi‐level buildings.

5.5.2 Statement of Significance (extract)


The factory is of local aesthetic, architectural and historical significance to the City of Boroondara.


Historically, the factory is significant for its associations with the early development of the Australian contact lens industry. The first purpose‐built contact lens factory in Melbourne, the premises was erected by with (sic) the company that pioneered the industry in Victoria in 1951, when it became only the third such manufacturer in Australia. More broadly, the factory is significant for its ability to demonstrate the ongoing theme of industrial development along and around Burwood Road, which had been an important regional epicentre for such activity since the 1850s.


Page 34 of 48

Aesthetically, the factory is significant as an outstanding and intact example of a post‐war building designed in the unmistakable organic style of Frank Lloyd Wright. While this style was popular for new houses in Melbourne from the mid‐1950s to the early 1970s, its application to non‐residential buildings was considerably rarer, and still more so for industrial buildings such as this. Neither a direct copy nor a pastiche of any known Wright buildings, the design of the factory skilfully references many themes, forms and details that recur throughout the American architect's work. These include the use of a cruciform plan expressed in a bold angular geometry, projecting prow‐like bays with matching canted roof eaves, horizontal redwood timber cladding and, most notably, the use of specially‐made coloured triangular concrete blocks with incised ornament. Set well back from the street between two much larger and more utilitarian buildings, this small jewel‐like structure remains as a highly unusual element in the streetscape.

Architecturally, the factory is significant as an unusual example of its type. As a 1960s industrial complex, it is atypical for its tiny scale (appropriate to the precision and small output of the specialised field of contact lenses manufacture), its centralised planning and its provision of an integrated residential flat for company manager. The building also derives architectural significance from its association with David Godsell, one of Melbourne's leading exponents of the Wrightian style.

It stands out in Godsell's body of work as the finest and most intact example of his non‐residential work, and, apparently, the only recorded example of his work in what is now the City of Boroondara.


A submission was received from the owner and occupier of the office building at 4A Montrose Street, Hawthorn East. It put the view that the inclusion of the building in the HO was unjustified, because:

No physical evidence remained of its previous use as a workshop.

The importance of the Montrose Street area in the industrial development of Hawthorn had been overstated and, in any case, previous heritage studies had not considered post‐war factories along or near Burwood Road to be of heritage significance.

The architect David Godsell had built very little during his career and had no profound or ongoing impact on the architecture of Boroondara.

Reference to design elements being derived from the Prairie School of architects associated with Frank Lloyd Wright was inaccurate.

The building did not demonstrate a high degree of creative or technical achievement, because coloured concrete blocks were commonplace at the time of its construction.

incorporation of a residence for a caretaker is not grounds for concluding that the building has heritage significance.


Page 35 of 48

The submission also pointed out that, due to the redevelopment of the sites on either side, the subject building would be surrounded by multi‐storey residential towers. This would mean that, in the future, any architectural or aesthetic values of the existing building would be diminished and rendered effectively non‐existent.

The submission enclosed a copy of advice from architectural conservation consultant, Mr Peter Barrett, to support this view. Mr Barrett stated that in his opinion the building was not of sufficient aesthetic, architectural or historical significance to warrant heritage protection. In addition, heritage controls would place unnecessary constraints on the land in terms of its future use and development.

Council, in its presentation to the Hearing, advised that, following the preliminary consultation on the heritage citation for the property, a planning permit application had been lodged for redevelopment of the land for a multi‐storey residential building. Council determined to refuse the application and issued a Notice of Refusal. An application for review was made to VCAT in March 2015 but has not yet been heard.

Council submitted that the development proposal for the site was not a relevant consideration for this Panel. It also pointed out that that the changing urban context of the property was not an issue, because the building was proposed for an individual HO, rather than being included as part of a precinct.

Mr Simon Reeves, who gave expert evidence on behalf of Council, advised that he (through his firm, Built Heritage Pty Ltd) had prepared the Boroondara Thematic Environmental History. In the course of research for that publication, he had identified the Montrose Street building – the former Nissel contact lens factory – as a ‘related place’ under the theme of post‐war industrial expansion. He was subsequently engaged by Council to prepare an individual citation for the property, in line with the action identified in Boroondara’s Heritage Action Plan (see section 2.1.2 above).

Mr Reeves’ expert witness statement outlined his methodology as including: historical research on Godsell and his designs and on contact lens manufacture in Australia, as well as information on the development of the site and the broader area; inspection from the street; and comparative analysis. He also prepared a detailed citation that recorded the results of his research and included an assessment against the HERCON heritage criteria.

In response to the submission from the owner of the Montrose Street property he made the following points:

The citation does not claim there is anything in the fabric of the building that demonstrates its former use for manufacture of contact lens, but this is not necessary in order to support its historical significance. Historical research indicates that this was the first purpose‐built contact lens factory in Victoria and the company was only the third such business established in Australia (after two in Sydney).

The citation does not assert that Montrose Street itself was an ‘epicentre’ of industrial activity, but that it was one off a number of smaller streets off Burwood Road that were associated with the broader theme of industrial development in this part of Hawthorn after World War II.


Page 36 of 48

Cultural significance can be ascribed to a building because it was designed by a particular architect, whether or not the person was influential in the area in which the building is located.

Godsell was an architect whose work was well‐known and publicised during his lifetime. The fact that he completed only a relatively small number of projects during his career cannot be cited as evidence that his buildings are devoid of merit, unworthy of scholarly attention or not appropriate candidates for heritage listing.

The purported lack of relationship between the designs of the Prairie School and the subject building overlooks the later evolution of Frank Lloyd Wright’s designs, which included a significant interest in polygonal geometry. In Mr Reeves’ view, the description ‘Prairie School’ could be fairly applied to Wright and the architects associated with him throughout his career, rather than being restricted to the earlier designs that had given rise to the name applied to the group.

The claim that the use of coloured concrete blocks was not a ‘technical achievement’ because such blocks were commonly used in the 1960s is not consistent with the citation, which stated that because the concrete blocks on the subject building were unusual in their form, finishes and colouring, they constituted a ‘creative achievement’.

Because cultural heritage significance is an evolving and cyclical phenomenon, hitherto overlooked buildings would inevitably be ‘rediscovered’ as places of heritage significance in the future.

A number of recent heritage studies have shown interest in post‐World War II industrial places. In Boroondara, a number of notable examples of such places have been demolished in recent years.

The provision of a residential flat on the upper level of a small factory for an owner or manager is a highly unusual phenomenon for the period.

Mr Barrett, in his statement of evidence, put the view that the Nissel & Company building at 4A Montrose Street is not significant to Boroondara because:

The manufacture of contact lenses was established in the 1940s in Australia and a company commencing manufacture a decade later cannot be considered to be pioneering.

This is the third premises occupied by the company, so to claim importance for it as ‘purpose built’ is too narrow a basis on which to claim significance.

The building provides no evidence in its current fabric of its original use as a workshop manufacturing optical lenses.

The residential scale and character of the building provides little to demonstrate that it was part of Hawthorn East’s industrial history. In any case, this part of Hawthorn was one of several areas in the district where industry could be found; it was not a regional ‘epicentre’ of industry, particularly when larger areas of industry existed elsewhere in Hawthorn.

Aesthetically, the subject building is an example of Modernist architecture that has elements found on the buildings of Frank Lloyd Wright, but this is not unusual, given the importance of Wright and his influence on twentieth century architecture.


Page 37 of 48

While the building has some Prairie School elements, it cannot be claimed to be evocative of the Prairie‐style per se, as it is not detached, has no open landscape setting and does not have a pitched roof.

The building is an example of the work of David Godsell, who had a prolific career in Melbourne from the early 1960s and is strongly associated with the south‐eastern suburbs. The fact that this building is the only work of Godsell’s in Boroondara does not raise its significance to any appreciable level.

Mr Barrett also noted changes to the exterior and interior of the building since its use by the Nissel company. The original factory/workshop entrance has been replaced with glazing, the central fireplace on the upper level has been removed and the original workbenches and manufacturing equipment have been replaced with an office fit‐out.

Mr Barrett provided examples of Prairie Style residences in the United States and in the City of Boroondara, including one designed by Walter Burley Griffin and Marian Mahoney Griffin, who were close associates of Wright, to demonstrate his claim that they were not comparable with the subject building.

In response to questions from Ms Lardner, Mr Reeves reiterated and expanded on a number of matters in the citation and his evidence. In addition to the points already noted, he said that:

Decorated, coloured concrete blocks specially made by a commercial manufacturer were unusual in the 1960s, although adding colour to concrete render was introduced in the 1930s and plain concrete blocks were widely used in post‐World War II buildings.

The assessment of heritage significance relates to values recognised at the time a place is identified and assessed; it is not important that previous studies did not identify a particular place.

Interesting, architect‐designed factories of 1950s and 1960s are becoming increasingly rare in Boroondara.

The cruciform plan of the building may not be immediately evident from the street but is shown clearly in the plans.

The fact that the building was purpose‐built for a particular use elevates it above a place that was occupied by or converted for the same purpose.

Although the fit‐out could be described as a ‘workshop’ rather than a factory, the building was still used for manufacturing.

Despite its small scale, the building would not be mistaken for a house; it had more of a commercial character, but there was not always a clear distinction between commercial and small scale industrial premises.

The property would be an ‘outstanding building’ wherever it was located and a good example of Godsell’s work.

The building is influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright’s later designs, as opposed to the strict characteristics of the ‘Prairie’ style up to about 1910.

The changed context still allows the building to be appreciated.

The fact that two other examples were tabled of residences combined with commercial properties of approximately the same era as the subject building did not change his view that such a combination was unusual.


Page 38 of 48

Mr Barrett’s presentation to the Hearing identified other areas in Boroondara that he considered had a more significance concentration of industry, particularly large scale premises. In response to questions, he stressed the difference between ‘Prairie School’ (or Prairie‐style) designs and later ‘Wrightian’ designs after 1910‐1920. He agreed that the subject building had some ‘Wrightian’ elements, as did the comparative examples identified by Mr Reeves, but said that it was not unusual to find references to Wright’s designs on buildings anywhere in the world. He put the view that the building should be assessed as a work of Godsell, rather than for any link with Wright. Godsell, he said, was a modest but reasonably successful sole practitioner, but not really an important architect.

Ms Lardner, through her questions and in her written submission tabled at the Hearing, raised a number of additional points including:

The site is located within the Auburn Village Neighbourhood Centre and the Burwood/Camberwell Road Commercial Corridor and the objectives of the planning scheme include for this area include ‘encouraging high density residential development’.

DDO16 ‘makes clear it is targeted for the areas adjacent to Auburn Station, including Montrose Street’.

The Minister’s refusal to apply interim HO controls to the site is a relevant consideration for the Panel and ‘ought be ascribed considerable weight’.

The Burra Charter requires the retention of an appropriate visual setting for a heritage place, but the setting of 4A Montrose Street has been substantially altered by adjoining development.

Ms Lardner also commented on the assessment against criteria (in the citation), reiterating a number of points that had been made in the owner’s submission and accompanying documents or in her cross examination of Mr Reeves.

Ms Lardner questioned the independence of Mr Reeves, on the basis that he had prepared both the Thematic Environmental History and the citation for the building, and these had not been peer reviewed. Furthermore, she suggested that Mr Reeves’ status as a specialist in post‐World War II built heritage was overstated and his enthusiasm for the period was inclined to override his judgement. She pointed out that he lacked formal (post‐graduate) qualifications in architectural history or architectural conservation.

Ms Lardner requested that the Panel recommend that the subject site be deleted from Amendment C178.


The Panel has inspected the site and area and has considered the submissions and evidence presented to it in forming its views as to the significance of this property.

The Panel agrees with Council that the development application relating to the subject property is not relevant to the assessment of its heritage significance. Similarly, the changed urban context is not a matter that needs to be taken into account at this stage, as in the Panel’s view it does not impact on the place to such an extent that its heritage values (if established) could no longer be appreciated. With regard to Ms Lardner’s reference to the Burra Charter, the Panel considers that the provision quoted refers to decisions being made


Page 39 of 48

about changes to the environs of a listed or recognised heritage place, rather than suggesting that a place cannot be recognised if it is located in unsympathetic surroundings.

The Panel acknowledges the advice from the Minister’s delegate that the application of interim heritage controls to the property ‘is not consistent with sound, co‐ordinated and integrated planning given that the site is in an Activity Centre that foreshadows new development opportunities’ but takes this to mean that an HO should only be applied to such a place after proper consideration through a Panel process, rather than as a pre‐emptive Ministerial action.

The Panel acknowledges that, as pointed out by Ms Lardner, the planning scheme objectives for neighbourhood centres and commercial corridors include ‘encouraging high density residential development’ but believes it goes without saying that not every site within these centres is expected to be redeveloped for that purpose.

The Design and Development Overlay Schedule 16, which applies to the land, requires development to maintain and enhance the traditional, low‐rise, high street character of neighbourhood centres and to have regard to adjoining residential amenity. It is acknowledged that Table 32 of the Overlay identifies Montrose Street as an area suitable for higher buildings and smaller upper storey setbacks, but again, the Panel does not believe that this requires all the buildings in the precinct to be replaced by higher density development.

As noted in section 1.3.2 (iv) above, Schedule 16 includes a decision guideline requiring consideration of whether the design of a proposed development supports the provisions of the Heritage Policy at Clause 22.05. The Panel believes this shows that Council envisages that the local heritage significance of places within activity centres should be taken into account in planning. Therefore, the Panel does not consider that application of an HO to a building within an activity centre would be inconsistent with these provisions, providing the place meets the threshold of local significance.

With regard to the heritage significance of the property at 4A Montrose Street, Hawthorn East, the Panel notes that the statement of significance identifies the place as being of aesthetic, architectural and historical significance to the City of Boroondara. These values have been taken to represent Criterion E (aesthetic/architectural) and Criterion A (historical) significance.

However, it is noteworthy that the citation contains an assessment against the HERCON heritage criteria that also makes claims for the importance of the building against:

Criterion B (rarity) as an rare and endangered survivor of post‐World War II factories in that part of Boroondara, as a rare building type that combines industrial and residential provision and as the only example of Godsell’s work in Boroondara.

Criterion F (creative/technical achievement) for its highly distinctive geometric form and planning and particularly though the unusual use of coloured triangular concrete blocks with incised ornament, that were especially manufactured for this project.

Criterion H (association with a person or group of persons of importance in Boroondara’s history) for its associations with Victor Lowe, manager of G Nissel & Company and a pioneer of contact lens manufacture in Australia.


Page 40 of 48

The Panel has determined to consider the property in relation to the values identified in the statement of significance rather than the broader assessment against criteria, which appears to contain material that is of heritage ‘interest’ rather than necessarily claiming to meet the threshold for local significance against each criterion.

With regard to historical significance, the Panel notes that the site‐specific claim for the property relates to its associations with the early development of the Australian contact lens industry. The firm of G Nissel & Company was the first to manufacture contact lenses in Victoria and only the third in Australia. The factory/workshop and associated residence was designed and built specifically for the company. The factory is also claimed to be significant for its ability to demonstrate the ongoing theme of industrial development along and around Burwood Road from the 1850s onwards.

The Panel does not accept that the ‘ability to demonstrate the ongoing theme of industrial development along and around Burwood Road’ for over 150 years is a sufficient reason to single out this property (though a case might have been made if the period had been shorter and the type of industrial development specified more clearly).

In contrast, after some consideration, the Panel believes that the property’s connection with the early development of the Australian contact lens industry is a valid cause to identify the place as being of historical significance at the local level. The invention of the contact lens was a major scientific advance and the G Nissel & Company was the first to undertake its manufacture in Victoria. The premises it occupied before moving to Montrose Street were not purpose‐built and may, therefore, be regarded as less significant.

In relation to Mr Barrett’s advice regarding internal changes made to the building, the Panel notes that no internal controls are proposed by the Amendment.

With regard to the potential architectural/aesthetic value of 4A Montrose Street, the Panel did not find a narrow concentration on what are claimed to be ‘Prairie School’ (or ‘Prairie‐style’) designs and characteristics to be particularly useful in its assessment. Whatever terminology is used at different points in the citation or in Mr Reeves’s evidence, the statement of significance for the place clearly refers to the ongoing influence of Frank Lloyd Wright’s designs (not just those that could be classified as ‘Prairie‐style’) and the recognition of David Godsell as an exponent of the broader ‘Wrightian’ style. The Panel is satisfied, from the evidence of Mr Reeves, that many of the elements of the design reflect themes, forms and details from Wright’s later work. These include the cruciform plan, the projecting bays with canted roof eaves, the horizontal cladding and the decorative concrete block work.

The key question, alluded to by Mr Barrett, is: How important are the design references to Wright in assessing the architectural/aesthetic value of the property as a factory/workshop designed by David Godsell?

The Panel agrees with Mr Reeves that the building is an unusual and skilful design for an industrial building and associated residence. Its small size reflects the scale and nature of the manufacturing that went on within it and would have fitted well with the residential uses that existed in the street at the time.

While David Godsell is not a household name, the Panel accepts that he was an architect of note in the period after World War II and that his work was publicised in major newspapers


Page 41 of 48

during his working life. It also notes that the National Trust has classified two of Godsell’s designs (his own house and another in Glen Waverley) and assessed them as being of state significance. It is of interest that both citations recognise Frank Lloyd Wright, particularly his later designs, as a major influence on Godsell.

With regard to the claimed lack of independence of Mr Reeves, the Panel has already dealt with this issue in relation to similar claims about Ms Schmeder (see section 3.1) and rejects this suggestion outright. It is normal practice for Panels to hear expert evidence from the consultants that have carried out local heritage studies and prepared citations for properties proposed for HO listing. Peer reviews are seldom called for, except where the studies relied on are old and/or where the people who undertook the study are unavailable.

Overall, in relation to architectural and historical values, the Panel prefers the evidence of Mr Reeves to that of Mr Barrett. Mr Reeves is recognised as a specialist (even if largely self‐taught) in post‐World War II built heritage in metropolitan Melbourne and the influence of international, particularly North American, trends on it. The Panel notes that Mr Barrett acknowledged that he has not previously assessed any ‘Wrightian’ or ’Prairie School’ buildings or done any research on the movement.

The Panel finds that the property at 4A Montrose Street is of local significance to the City of Boroondara for its historic and architectural/aesthetic values.

As noted above, the citation for this property includes an assessment against heritage criteria that records values against more criteria than those identified in the statement of significance. The Panel has concluded that these refer to heritage ‘interest’ rather than significance and suggests that the citation should be amended to recognise this.


Page 42 of 48

5.6 HO20 1045 Burke Road, Hawthorn East


This site is located on the northwest corner of Burke Road and Rathmines Road, Hawthorn. It is currently occupied by a Queen Anne residence known as ‘Arden’ and is listed in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay (HO20) in the Boroondara Planning Scheme.

The significance of the property was reviewed in 2012 when it was discovered that the garden had been redesigned by Edna Walling in 1928. A revised citation was prepared which added information in relation to the garden and the fence along Burke Road and Rathmines Road.

The exhibited Amendment applies the ‘tree controls’ for specific plants and the ‘fence and outbuilding notice requirements’ for the fence along the Burke and Rathmines Roads frontages, to the existing heritage overlay.



Arden is of local historical and aesthetic significance to the City of Boroondara.


Architecturally and aesthetically significant for: its adaptation of Queen Anne to a tight site; the complexity of its elevation and planning; the use of the


Page 43 of 48

unusual splayed corner on a Queen Anne design; and for the outstanding fence, rare on Queen Anne houses throughout metropolitan Melbourne. (Criteria B, E and F)


A written submission was lodged with Council opposing the inclusion of the controls relating to the garden and fences in the HO Schedule.

The submitter stated that plants in the original Edna Walling garden had been removed and changes made that affected any heritage significance it may have once had. In relation to the notification provisions for the fence, the submitter advised that its removal forms part of the permit, issued at the direction of VCAT, to redevelop the property.

On considering this submission and receiving expert advice, Council resolved not to proceed with the triggering of the tree controls in the HO.

Minter Ellison, for the property owner/submitter, wrote to the Panel to advise they no longer wished to appear at the hearing but requested that the contents of their letter be taken into consideration. The letter referred to the permit issued to demolish the dwelling and fence along Burke Road and Rathmines Road and to the advice that Council had resolved not to trigger the tree controls of the HO. The letter also stated that demolition of Arden and the fence ‘was proposed to commence in the short term’. Ms Liu advised that a two years extension, in which to commence development had been granted by Council.

The letter received from Minter Ellison also submitted that the notification requirements for the fence were not warranted on heritage grounds and it referred the Panel to Mr Raworth’s evidence at the VCAT hearing that stated the fence ‘is not a rare or significant example of its kind’.

Ms Schmeder’s evidence was that the fence is of fine design and unusual form. It is largely intact, apart from the insertion of ripple iron panels behind it (reversible), rebuilding of a gate pier and replacement of the corner gate. She said that original fences are recognised as valuable elements of original residential designs and fences from the Victorian and Edwardian periods are particularly rare and worthy of heritage protection.

At the Hearing, Council confirmed that the HO had been amended post‐exhibition to remove the tree controls trigger. It however wished to retain the notification / review trigger for the fence.

5.6.4 Discussion and conclusion

The Panel is well aware of the permit that has issued to demolish the dwelling and front fence and to redevelop the property.

Based on its view of the property, and Ms Schmeder’s evidence, the Panel believes that the fence along Burke Road and Rathmines Road does contribute to the significance of the property. The Panel notes Mr Raworth’s written evidence to VCAT stated that ‘the cast iron and brick front fence is a handsome streetscape element but is not especially rare or outstanding’. Based on the photographs included in Mr Raworth’s VCAT evidence the Panel accepts the fence may not be particularly rare. It however believes that, as stated in Mr Raworth’s VCAT evidence, the fence is an element that contributes to the streetscape and


Page 44 of 48

the existing dwelling. As Mr Raworth was not called to provide evidence to the Panel he could not be asked questions in relation to this matter.

The Panel believes that until the issued permit is acted on, it is appropriate to include reference to the fence along the Burke Road and Rathmines Road frontages in the ‘Outbuildings or fences which are not exempt under Clause 43.01‐3’ Column of the HO.

In view of the changes made to the garden, the Panel supports the removal of trigger for tree controls.



Substitute the word ‘No’ for ‘Yes (Specimens of Privet, Crab Apple, and plants comprising Tapestry Hedge on Burke and Rathmines Road frontages)’ in the column ‘Tree Controls Apply’ in the entry for HO20, ‘Arden’, 1045 Burke Road, Hawthorn East.


Page 45 of 48

Appendix A List of Submitters

No Submitter

1 Brodie Treloar

2 Teresa Di Sisto

3 Basil Hedges

4 Dr Francesco Barbagallo

5 Bolalo Pty Ltd

6 Dean Bustin

7 1045 Burke Road Pty Ltd

8 Dr Tony Sobol

9 Kenneth Edmonds

10 Aleks Kaya

11 C & S Alexander


Page 46 of 48

Appendix B Document List

No Date Description Presented by

1 21/4/15 Council submission Ms Liu Boroondara CC

1a “ Exhibited HO Schedule – C178 Boroondara CC

1b “ Boroondara Heritage Action Plan 2012 Boroondara CC

2 “ Aerial photo, Grange Avenue Precinct (HO590) Boroondara CC

3 “ Map showing location of submitters Boroondara CC

4 22/4/15 Letter from DELWP re approval of C211 interim controls Boroondara CC

5 “ Aerial photo of 415‐417 High Street, Kew (HO603) Boroondara CC

6 “ Aerial photo of 13‐15 Irilbarra Road, Canterbury (HO591) Boroondara CC

7 “ Submission re 13‐15 Irilbarra Road, Canterbury (HO591) – link via Dropbox

Dr Sobol

8 “ Plans re request under Section 29A, Building Act, for 13‐15 Irilbarra Road, Canterbury

Boroondara CC

9 23/4/15 Cadastral plan, 165 Whitehorse Road, Deepdene (HO593) Best Hooper

10 “ Boroondara Thematic Environmental History Best Hooper

11 “ Submission re 165 Whitehorse Road, Deepdene (HO593) Best Hooper

12 “ Boroondara C116 Panel Report Best Hooper

13 28/4/15 Planning Permit (1995) re 4A Montrose Street, East Hawthorn

J Lardner

14 “ 1903 MMBW plan of Montrose Street J Lardner

15 “ Photos of the internal spaces of 4A Montrose Street prior to 1995 alterations, showing workshop/factor

J Lardner

16 “ Photos of Boomer House, Arizona – a comparative example cited by S Reeves

J Lardner

17 “ Photos of other examples of combined dwellings/factories or dwellings/commercial premises

J Lardner

18 “ Article re influence of Frank Lloyd Wright – Architecture 5 1969, Vol 3:5

J Lardner

19 “ Photos of Capitol House, ES&A Bank and IOOF Building (comparative examples)

J Lardner

20 “ Photos of the fireplace at 4A Montrose Street in 1995, prior to removal

J Lardner

21 “ Submission re 4A Montrose Street J Lardner


Page 47 of 48

22 “ Bundle of additional information including: J Lardner

22a “ ‐ relevant provisions of the Boroondara Planning Scheme J Lardner

22b “ ‐ plans for application currently before VCAT for 4A Montrose Street

J Lardner

22c&d “ ‐ perspective drawings looking down Montrose Street from different directions showing buildings under construction or proposed

J Lardner

22e “ ‐ Site Plan – Montrose Street, Hawthorn East Development Precinct

J Lardner

22f “ ‐ chain of emails relating to proposed application of interim heritage controls on 4A Montrose Street

J Lardner

22g “ ‐ background material on Frank Lloyd Wright J Lardner


Page 48 of 48

Appendix C HERCON Heritage Criteria Criterion A: Importance to the course or pattern of our cultural or natural history (historical significance).

Criterion B: Possession of uncommon rare or endangered aspects of our cultural or natural history (rarity).

Criterion C: Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of our cultural or natural history (research potential).

Criterion D: Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places or environments (representativeness).

Criterion E: Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics (aesthetic significance).

Criterion F: Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period (technical significance).

Criterion G: Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. This includes the significance of a place to Indigenous peoples as part of their continuing and developing cultural traditions (social significance).

Criterion H: Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons of importance in our history (associative significance).

Source: Practice Note No 1 – Applying the Heritage Overlay (revised September 2012).